Friday, September 09, 2011

A 9/11 Conspiracy Theory That Makes Sense

By MARC McDONALD

I find it interesting how, as we approach the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the whole once-noisy "Truther" movement seems to have faded away. 9/11 conspiracy theories were already on the wane before Bin Laden was killed. Now, they've faded into the woodwork.

I myself have long been allergic to conspiracy theories. Whether one is talking about the JFK killing, or Princess Diana's death, or 9/11, the problem is that conspiracy theories tend to suffer the common problems of either (A) being too implausible or (B) raising more questions that they answer.

Personally, I believe "our" government has yet to tell us the truth of what really happened on Sept. 11, 2001. But on the other hand, I'm not ready to join the ranks of those who believe that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives that were covertly smuggled in.

Most 9/11 conspiracy theories I've heard are just wacky. They don't make much sense. For example, if the Twin Towers were really brought down by planted explosives, then what, exactly, was the whole point of the hijacked airliners? If some secret Bush cabal was really behind 9/11, then why not just detonate the towers and leave it at that? Why make the whole conspiracy vastly more complicated by including the hijacked airliners scenario?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of these Bush-supporting, Truther-bashing wingnuts who scoff at the very notion of a 9/11 conspiracy.

In fact, I personally believe that there was a 9/11 conspiracy. But it wasn't anything like the "Truther" movement has conceived. And unlike some elaborate James Bond-style plot, this 9/11 conspiracy theory was prompted by decidedly unsexy factors like plain old incompetence and the U.S. government's "cover-your-butt" mentality.

After all, as we now know, George W. Bush himself was real big on butt-covering himself. Exhibit A of the latter came on Aug. 6, 2001, when, in the middle of a 5-week vacation, Bush was handed a Presidential Daily Briefing that warned: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Bush's response that day was to tell his CIA briefers: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

However, unlike most of the elaborate, far-fetched 9/11 conspiracy theories out there, there is one conspiracy theory that actually makes sense.

My own 9/11 conspiracy theory is as follows. The Saudi government (or at least powerful, key elements of it) knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance. And what's more, powerful key players in the U.S. government now know that the Saudis knew in advance.

Note that I'm not saying that the U.S. government knew about 9/11 in advance. But I do believe it's highly plausible that key players in our government did know, after the fact, that the Saudis knew in advance.

Personally, I think this conspiracy theory makes sense and it goes a long ways toward explaining a number of mysteries that linger from that day.

For example, Truthers have long (rightly) been skeptical about why the Bush White House long fought to cover any 9/11 investigations with a veil of secrecy.

Whether one believes in a conspiracy or not, one undeniable fact is that our government has long been working hard to cover up something.

I believe the 9/11 conspiracy theory I've presented would explain several other mysteries. One is why the Bush White House was so eager to fly various Saudis, including extended members of Bin Laden's own family, out of the country, in the days following 9/11.

Some commentators, including Michael Moore, raised this issue years ago. Now, a decade after 9/11, this mystery continues to be unexplained. In fact, at least one flight of a Saudi national took place during the period in which all flights were ordered grounded by the FAA. For three years, the White House denied the very existence of this Sept. 13, 2001, flight, from Tampa, Fla. to Lexington, Ky.---that is, until Tampa International Airport finally confirmed it, in 2004.

(Note that the Snopes.com site attempts to make the case that the Tampa, Fla. to Lexington, Ky. flight didn't actually occur before national airspace was open to general aviation. But in this case, it appears that Snopes.com is wrong).

It's clear, then the U.S. was giving the Saudis special treatment. But why? If the Saudis had damaging information about the U.S. government's 9/11 knowledge, this would make perfect sense.

It'd also explain why the U.S. always treated the Saudis with kid gloves after 9/11. It's odd when you consider that, at a time the Bush White House was already gearing up to go to war with Iraq (a nation that, of course, had nothing to do with 9/11), the Bush team was bending over backwards to accommodate the extraordinary demands of Saudi Arabia---the nation where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from.

The Saudis, in fact, rarely cooperated with the U.S. in the aftermath of 9/11. They refused for years to allow U.S. investigators access to the financial trail of the hijackers, for one thing.

Why, exactly, didn't the Bush White House press the Saudis on this valuable data? Could it be that the Saudis had the Bush team by the balls?

The U.S.-knew-that-the-Saudis-knew conspiracy theory would also explain a major mystery that was uncovered by investigative author Gerald Posner, in his 2003 book, Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11.

In the book, Posner related the amazing story of the CIA interrogation of Saudi citizen Abu Zubaydah, a man who has never been charged with a crime, but who was waterboarded during CIA interrogations. (The CIA later destroyed videos of the interrogations in 2005).

Posner writes that the CIA flew Zubaydah to an Afghan complex painstakingly furnished to resemble a Saudi jail chamber, where "two Arab-Americans, now with Special Forces, would play the role of his new inquisitors."

Posner continues:

"What transpired in the next hour took the American investigators completely by surprise. When Zubaydah was confronted with men passing themselves off as Saudi security officers, his reaction was not fear but instead relief. The prisoner, who had been reluctant even to confirm his identity to his American captors, suddenly started talking animatedly. He was happy to see them, he said, because he feared the Americans would torture and then kill him. Zabaydah asked his interrogators to call a senior member of the ruling Saudi royal family. He then provided a private home number and a cell phone number from memory. "He will tell you what do," Zubaydah promised them."

Posner notes that, during the interrogation, Zubaydah revealed the names of four powerful figures, from both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Not long afterward, all four people met untimely deaths, under mysterious circumstances.

What's notable about Posner's revelation is that he is an extremely skeptical writer who has built his career by debunking conspiracy theories. He is the author of two books that demolish many of the conspiracy theories surrounding the assassinations of JFK and MLK.

The more one reads about the Saudi government's behavior in the aftermath of 9/11, the more clear it becomes that the Saudis have long demanded (and received) extraordinary special treatment from the U.S. on all matters 9/11-related.

It's clear the U.S. government has been extremely reluctant to provoke the Saudis in any way. A reasonable explanation for this is that the Saudi have dirt on the U.S. government (or at least a number of powerful key players in our government). The U.S.-knew-that-the-Saudis-knew conspiracy theory would go a long ways toward explaining this mystery.

I'd expect that many conspiracy-weary readers will object to my theory on the grounds that President Obama would certainly have investigated and revealed this matter by now.

But if anything has been certain about Obama since he assumed the White House, it's that he simply isn't interested in investigating any of the crimes of the Bush administration. We've already seen clear evidence of that in other areas. After all, three years after the 2008 financial crash, not a single high-profile Wall Street player has faced criminal charges in the aftermath of what was the biggest financial fraud ever foisted upon the American people.

Are you kidding me? "If some secret Bush cabal was really behind 9/11, then why not just detonate the towers and leave it at that?" Even a third grader knows you point the finger at somebody else. I'm not saying anything but two airplanes bringing down three buildings at near free fall speed begs for rational investigation. Get a clue... AE911Truth.org.

Agree w/your conclusion that we found out (after 9/11) the Saudis knew before the event, probably bank-rolled part or all of it. Why the elaborate plan of planes crashing into the towers and then detonating them? He's my view and it's not entirely original. Our IC had some really good sniffs (for $45B and 14 agencies they better have known something) about what was up (see washingtonsblog - scroll down a few posts to see all the official doubts of officials). The IC had the sniffs but like all bureaucracies they compete harder against each other than those on their target list and were unable to put it together. Enter the Bush moron national security team, when warned they did nothing. Instead of telling IC heads to give them something actionable or resign (in other words set a blow torch up the IC directors butts to get to the bottom of the warnings) they said as you said. OK, so the ICs w/o proper executive direction miss the planes and they flew into the towers. Now financially driven insurance types (the kind that have surfaced since '08) have known since '93 the bill they would be presented w/if the buildings on the plaza dominoed each other. To protect their investment they did what? Right, they wired the buildings. When it appeared the towers might dominoe the entire plaza they "pulled" the buildings w/pre-planted explosives making sure they pancaked on their footprint and did not dominoe the plaza. Ah, insurance payout kept to a minimum! Building 7? “I thought you said 7 too?!”, government f- -k-up or just a great opportunity for covering more federal fanny. You make the call.

I have never believed the official "story" about what happened on 9-11. I have never claimed to know what really happened, I have know idea how it happened and the official story itself is even somewhat plausible. What is not plausible, however, is "if" the official story is the truth, then why all of the obstruction into verifying that story. This single event has led to the rapid decline of our country's civil liberties, our near financial colapse and the invasion of two different countries and yet we are left to speculate about all of these holes in the official story. It is no wonder that so many conspiracy theories have sprung up because it is obvious, that for whatever reason, we have been lied to. I do not understand why this is taboo subject in America still to this day. Sure there are crazy theories out there but many of the crazyiest theories themselves are spawned from the nuggets of truth that our government continues to be deceptive about. Even bringing these issues up, in the most rational manner I know how to do, brings out the "tin-foil-hat" comments and actually got be banned from Dailykos for a year for asking the question, "Why can't we have a rational discussion about the discrepencies in the official story?"Your explanation seems like a rational explanation to adress the discrepencies in the official story but because of the obstruction and deceipt deliberately caused by our government, for whatever reason (even if the reason really is legit and for national security reasons)your theory is simply one more conspiracy theory amongst millions that can neither be confirmed nor denied. It is time for "We the people" to allow these discussions without name calling, without the dismissive attitudes and demand to know what happened that day. It has effected each and everyone of us; we have a right to know the truth. How can something with so much of an impact on all of our lives be forbidden to be even discussed amongst ourselves?

Certainly this information would be very embarrassing for the Bush administration were it to come out now, but how did that conversation with the Saudis go on the evening of 9/11/2001? At that point no coverup had been started, so what leverage would the Saudis have, unless they had some other dirt on us?

"Hey, we knew all about this attack weeks ago, and we didn't tell you, so you should let us leave the country and cover up our involvement."

I understand why the coverup would continue now, but why start it then?

An interesting take on it. It's probably the least damning theory as far as Bush is concerned. However I don't quite follow why this would give the Saudis leverage over Bush - unless they told him in particular and he didn't pass the information on. If the administration didn't know beforehand, it makes the Saudis look bad, but not Bush. I must be missing something.

There are still indications that the US was given detailed warnings from German, British, French, Russian, Egyptian and Israeli intelligence prior to 9-11. I suspect that the US government was given information prior to 9-11 but either didn't take it seriously or the bureaucracy reacted too slowly to affect the outcome. We've already heard that various individuals in different parts of the intelligence community had pieces of the puzzle.

Just a side note, Posner seems to have an uncomfortably close relationship with the CIA. I personally don't think he's really closed the case on the JFK assassination, regardless of his book title. I think he's a convenient conduit that the CIA uses to put out whatever ideas they want out there.

Certainly, we can agree that the government has never told the whole truth about either 9-11 or JFK. They may *think* they are withholding the truth for legitimate reason, and there may be some justification for their decision. However,I tend to think they are more concerned with CYA than anything else.

Regardless, I'd rather know the truth, as unpleasant as it may be. The alternative is to never be able to trust our government again. Maybe that's the wiser choice in the long run anyways.

You said: "conspiracy theories tend to suffer the common problems of.... raising more questions that they answer." Well, of course they raise more questions, that's how thinking persons react to some world shattering events. Of course, you could be like the rest of the passive sheep (the American public in general) and just accept that anti-fact, anti-science explanation shoveled out by a compliant media. "Shock and Awe" was not used on the Iraqi population first--it was tried and proven on the US population, and worked so well that it was repeated on Iraq.

"if Twin Towers were really brought down by planted explosives, what.... whole point of the hijacked airliners?" The original conspiracy, which I believe the government discovered, was informed about or otherwise knew was to happen, and when, was perfect COVER for the greater conspiracy, another Pearl Harbor type attack on the USA to shock and awe the population into accepting all the Bush Admin human rights and civil rights crimes that followed. Really, if you cannot understand this, maybe you should give up blogging and start reading the actual explanations by scientists, etc., who are skeptical of the "official" coverup story. As for making the whole conspiracy more complicated, well, does your brain hurt? Complexity makes it much harder to uncover the real crime. And yet, even with the complexity and the cover, enough physical facts were apparent even watching the event unfold on TV (which got me suspicious immediately, as it looked like the towers came down like a controlled demolition) to discredit the cover up. Like the collapse of building 7, and the speed of the collapse of the twin towers, as well as the total pulverization of the concrete and all contents of the buildings, except the highjacker's passports, which floated unscathed to the ground.

"9/11 conspiracy.....wasn't anything like the "Truther" movement has conceived." The legitimate truther movement, despite the frenzied attempts by the government, official spokesmen and the compliant, lying establishment mass media, (the same one that cheerled the nation into an illegal, immoral war on Iraq), to discredit and silence them, is made up of many responsible, intelligent and knowledgeable people, including scientists, architects and engineers who just know that the official collapse explanations for the towers and especially Building 7 do not hold up to detailed scientific examination.

The "official" spokemen are best represented by Bill Clinton who rhetorically asked "how dare you, how dare you?" to people who had the gall to question the official (cover up) explanation. Well former blow job receiving POTUS, we "dare" because the First Amendment protects our right to not only speak, but THINK too.

"plain old incompetence and the U.S. government's "cover-your-butt" mentality." This allowed the greater conspiracy to go ahead. The communication breakdowns, like the plot to fly the planes into the tower, proved very useful to the much smaller, but very able and well funded group that used those factors to bring the towers down. I seriously doubt that Bush was in on much, if any of it. His handlers were well aware what a doofus he is, and he was a puppet who continued to be a puppet all the way to the end of his term, and beyond. It is one thing to claim facts not provable and another to really unravel a complex, well funded conspiracy. I think your Saudi theory is accurate, but one only component of the whole event.

"three years after the 2008 financial crash, not a single high-profile Wall Street player has faced criminal charges in the aftermath of what was the biggest financial fraud ever foisted upon the American people." That is because Obama is complicit. I will not vote again for this tool of the criminal elite under any circumstances.

And then there was the Saudi family that had been in contact with Mohammed Atta that suddenly disappeared days before 9-11, leaving behind everything - including a brand new car and expensive furniture. "FBI found ties between hijackers and Saudis in Sarasota but never revealed the findings

Just two weeks before the 9/11 hijackers slammed into the Pentagon and World Trade Center, members of a Saudi family abruptly vacated their luxury home near Sarasota, leaving a brand new car in the driveway, a refrigerator full of food, fruit on the counter — and an open safe in a master bedroom.In the weeks to follow, law enforcement agents not only discovered the home was visited by vehicles used by the hijackers, but phone calls were linked between the home and those who carried out the death flights — including leader Mohamed Atta — in discoveries never before revealed to the public.Ten years after the deadliest attack of terrorism on U.S. soil, new information has emerged that shows the FBI found troubling ties between the hijackers and residents in the upscale community in southwest Florida, but the investigation wasn’t reported to Congress or mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report."Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/07/2395698/link-to-911-hijackers-found-in.html#ixzz1XfERMS00

I notice you fail to mention one of the most likely reasons why the Bush administration treated the Saudis with kid gloves...which is probably a large part of the reason why we attacked Iraq even though they had nothing to do with 9/11. The reason can be spelled out in three letters: O-I-L, a resource on which this country is so heavily dependent that it amounts to a virtual addiction. Do you think it's a coincidence that of the five countries with the world's largest proven oil reserves, Iraq is only one of two countries with which we did not have a good relationship in the years before as well as after 9/11? Care to take a guess what the other country is? If you said "Iran", give yourself a gold star.

Common sense: When have more than a handful of people ever been able to keep a secret? Especially when the reward for revealing it would be untold millions of dollars in book/movie deals. The government couldn't keep a President getting oral sex from an intern secret.

Common sense: If flying planes in to towers wouldn't bring them down, then why try to make it look like that happened? Rigging it to appear that something impossible happened would make no sense.

Common sense: If its a conspiracy, why bring down WTC7? WTC 7 had one corner carved out down a third of the building - that plus the diesel fuel fed fires easily explain its collapse.

Common sense: The buildings didn't collapse as in a demolition, but that isn't apparent because by the time it becomes chaotic there is too much dust to see what is going on. Look at the debris in the aftermath, that looked nothing like a controlled demolition.

Common sense: If the government knew about this beforehand, would the solicitor general's wife be on one of those planes?

Common sense: If you were a government official, would you risk going to prison, perhaps the death penalty, to engage hundreds of people in a conspiracy to kill thousands of people, just to gain political leverage? Really?

we saw how bad bush/cheney/rove's plans always were so even if the bomb sounds redundant, they liked a good show. Whoever did it, they put bombs in at 1 and 2 wtc as well as the other wtc building that exploded without being hit by planes. but regardless, they had intelligence they didnt act on so that makes them culpable. why steal an election to let thousands die? Oh i know to make your defense contractor and oil friends money.

re:"I personally don't think he's really closed the case on the JFK assassination, regardless of his book title."

I agree with you here. But I do give Posner credit for debunking a number of the major conspiracy theories. One big problem in finding The Truth in the JFK killling has always been that many self-appointed "Truth Seeking" conspiracy writers have done very sloppy, inaccurate work over the years. Kudos for solid, outstanding researchers like Thom Hartmann for helping to reverse this lamentable trend in recent years.

re:"...was perfect COVER for the greater conspiracy, another Pearl Harbor type attack on the USA to shock and awe the population into accepting all the Bush Admin human rights and civil rights crimes that followed."

Agreed. But I'm unclear as to exactly what advantage the whole complex hijacking plot would have over simply blowing up the buildings (and then leaving clues pointing to Al Qaeda in the rubble).

Hi Ron, thanks for your comment.re:"Common sense: If you were a government official, would you risk going to prison, perhaps the death penalty, to engage hundreds of people in a conspiracy to kill thousands of people, just to gain political leverage? Really?"

Great point. This point alone is a good part of the reason why I find these sweeping, massive government conspiracies to be implausible.

.

About This Blog

Welcome to BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com, the progressive political blog of Marc McDonald. A Texas journalist, McDonald worked for 15 years for several newspapers, including the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, before he quit his day job and set up shop in cyberspace in 1995. McDonald's articles have appeared in a number of popular progressive Web sites, including Crooks and Liars, The Reaction, Buzzflash.com, Salon.com, OpEdNews.com, The Neil Rogers Show and The Raw Story. McDonald's Web articles have also been featured and reviewed by various national and international media, including CNN Headline News, the BBC, CBS, the Washington Post, USA Today and many more. On June 3, 2011, I was interviewed on the progressive radio program, "Voices at Work." Go here to hear my interview with host Ron Gonyea. I am always available for media interviews on progressive issues. Contact me here.